Friday, April 20, 2012

If you haven't already seen the above photo, it's disgusting. That's Chris Hill when he was US Ambassador to Iraq. He's with some woman who works for the State Dept. and also, at that time, was stationed in Iraq.

If you can't read the caption, it states, "And we can show that as the US Ambassador to Iraq dressing as JFK's unsuccessful Secret Service bodyguard for a Halloween party as Baghdad burned around you apparently isn't poor judgment. Even after photos are posted on a popular sharing spot. Point noted."

She's said everything that needs to be said, as usual. But one thing I want to do is weigh in. Even though I'm in agreement.

Let me explain to you, JFK did not die on the TV.

If you didn't live through it, you may know it as trivia or old footage or whatever.

But if you lived through it, it was a nightmare. It did not matter whether you were a Democrat or a Republican. It didn't matter at all.

It also didn't matter that JFK was no saint.

To know that the US President, sitting president, was going through a city (Dallas) in a motorcade, waving to people, when shots rang out (I don't buy Arlen Specter's magic bullet theory) and a governor was injured and his wife and Jackie O were in the car.

You realized that it was scary as well as tragic.

The country lost its leader, its elected leader.

It was a national tragedy. People cried in public. (I wasn't an adult and that was probably the scariest part. Seeing grown men and women crying in public. Adults didn't do that then. Stiff upper lip was the norm.)

Jackie Kennedy was there when Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson was sworn in as President after JFK was declared dead. It was, you can be sure, something she didn't want to do. But she did it. Just like she did everything in the immediate aftermath, with grace and strength.

She could have collapsed and probably would have loved to. But she knew the whole country was watching her and she knew they would take their cues from her.

So she showed tremendous leadership, this woman who had so recently suffered a miscarriage. She held it together and made it look possible.

So when this tragic event is turned into a cheap joke, it's tacky.

If someone I knew dressed as Hill and that woman in the photo did, I'd pull them aside and say, "I really don't think this is funny." That would be it though. Provided they weren't government workers and officials.

Chris Hill was the US Ambassador to Iraq when that photo was taken. He was heading the Baghdad mission and chose to take part in that cheap and tacky 'joke.'

It was mocking a US tragedy, it was mocking all that Jackie Kennedy did to help the nation heal, it was mocking the loss of a sitting president.

This was not funny and it is unacceptable in a government official.

Chris Hill should issue a public apology and the State Dept. should answer as to how normal and acceptable his behavior in that photo is.

Friday,
April 19, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, Nouri bombs with Turkey
but Barzani's a hit, US journalists are targeted, the political crisis
continues, Rob Andrews justifies war for any reason, Panetta tries to
dance around Congress, and more.

Starting in the US where journalists Tom Vaden Brook and Ray Locker have been targeted. Gregory Korte (USA Today) reports
that when Vanden Brook and his editor Locker began working on an
article about fraud and waste in Pentagon contracting, the push-back was
for fake websites and accounts to be created in their name to spread
false rumors about them with the apparent hope that the two would be
discredited and discouraged. Vanden Brook is quoted stating he is still
on the story, "If they thought it would determ from writing about this,
they're wrong." Locker echoes that sentiment stating, "This is a clear
attempt at intimidation that has failed." Why would anyone want to
intimidate the two? Because this is about a lot of money. Vanden Brook and Locker reported at the end of February:

As
the Pentagon has sought to sell wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to
often-hostile populations there, it has spent hundreds of millions of
dollars on poorly tracked marketing and propaganda campaigns that
military leaders like to call "information operations," the modern
equivalent of psychological warfare.

From
2005 to 2009, such spending rose from $9 million to $580 million a year
mostly in Iraq and Afghanistan, Pentagon and congressional records show.
Last year, spending dropped to $202 million as the Iraq War
wrapped up. A USA TODAY investigation, based on dozens of interviews
and a series of internal military reports, shows that Pentagon officials
have little proof the programs work and they won't make public where
the money goes. In Iraq alone, more than $173 million was paid to what
were identified only as "miscellaneous foreign contractors."

The
Pentagon said it was "unaware" of such activity and deemed it
"unacceptable." A source told Korte that the Pentagon had asked the
related contractors if there had been any such activity, and all had
denied it, but the inquiries were "informal and did not amount to an
official investigation." After USA Today made inquiries to the Pentagon
about the websites, they were taken down.

Meanwhile
there is the ongoing conflict between Turkey and the PKK -- the PKK is a
group that fights for Kurdish sovereignty and a Kurdish homeland. The
Turkish government sees the PKK as a terrorist organization. Today's Zayman reports
1 female member of the PKK was killed by Turkey forces when the Turkish
forces moved and notes, "The conflict has claimed tens of thousands of
lives. The group is labled a terrorist organization by the European
Union and the United States, which has supplied Predator drones to
assist Turkey." The PKK operates out of southern Turkey and nothern
Iraq chiefly. AFP reports
that KRG President Massoud Barzani and Turkey's Foreign Minister Ahmet
Davutoglu met today in Ankara and discussed many issues including the
PKK. The Sunday Zaman notes,
"Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has said the Turkish military
would 'completely' halt military operations against the terrorist
Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) if the organization were to lay down its
arms." And they note,
"The terrorist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) should lay down its
weapons for a peaceful solution to the Kurdish issue, Kurdistan Regional
Government (KRG) President Massoud Barzani said on Friday during an
official visit to Turkey." Hurriyet Daily News sums up,
"Speaking separately but in unison, Turkish PM Erdogan and Iraqi
Kurdish leader Barzani implore the outlawed PKK to cease its armed
fight."

On the topic of Iraq and its northern neighbor Turkey, let's drop back to April 7th:

How bad are relations between Iraq and its neighbors? AFP reports
Falih al-Fayaad went toTurky this week to meet with Turkish officials
on Nour's behalf. As 2011 was winding down, what was Nouri doing? Oh,
that's right, he was trashing the president and the prime minister of
Turkey and doing so publicly and repeatedly. And when not issuing
insults about them, he was accusing them of trying to control Iraq.

That was April 7th. Today, thirteen days later? Today's Zaman reports,
"Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has said Turkey is becoming an
enemy state in the region in a sign of growing tensions between Turkey
and Iraq. Maliki's harshest remarks so far came at a time when Turkey
was hosting two senior Iraqi politicians who are at odds with his
government." AFP quotes from a statement by Nouri posted to his website:

The
latest statements of [Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip] Erdogan are
another return to the process of interfering in Iraqi internal affairs
and it confirms that Mr. Erdogan is still living the illusion of
regional hegemon. It is regrettable that his statements have a
sectarian dimension which he used to deny before but which have become
clear, and are rejected by all Iraqis. Insisting on continuing these
internal and regional policies will damage Turkey's interests and makes
it a hostile state for all.

Yesterday Today's Zaman reported
that the government of Turkey had refused the Baghdad request to hand
over Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi. (Turkey's taken the same position
Qatar and Saudi Arabia did when Nouri made the request of them earlier
this month.) It must be very humiliating for Nouri and his lackeys.
When al-Hashemi traveled from the KRG to Qatar at the start of this
month, they made pompous statements to the press which only revealed how
truly ignorant they were. The government of ___ [fill in the blank]
would hand al-Hashemi over and, on the off chance that the government
didn't, they were going to have INTERPOL travel to ___ [fill in the
blank] and INTERPOL would arrest al-Hashemi and bring him to Baghdad.
It didn't matter to the stupid and ignorant that INTERPOL's charter
specifically states it is not to be invovled in political actions so
that it may remain impartial. al-Hashemi is targeted for political
reasons. That always meant INTERPOL should not be involved and that, if
they reviewed the request, they would turn it down. But there was
Nouri and his various flunkies flaunting just what kind of stupid gets
to run and ruin things in Iraq.

Iraqi
Kurdish leader Massoud Barzani's two-day talks in İstanbul and Ankara
appear to have focused on tensions brewing between Iraq's Shiite-led
government and minority Sunnis and Kurds, which Prime Minister Recep
Tayyip Erdoğan has described as "ominous."

Barzani
had closed-door talks with Erdoğan in İstanbul on Thursday and met with
President Abdullah Gül and Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu in Ankara
on Friday. Speaking to reporters about his meeting with Barzani, Erdoğan
said both Barzani and the cross-sectarian Iraqiya group are "seriously
bothered" by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's policies.

Maybe if Nouri had stopped his verbal attacks on the Turkish government, M. Alihan Hasanoglu (Today's Zaman) would be reporting
Baghdad had many projects in development with Turkey including a $36
million one. Instead, that reports on the projects Turkey's developing
with the KRG. Equally true, Nouri was making catty comments about
Barzani earlier this week. It would appear Barzani's getting along with
everyone on his trips to other countries. The same can't be said of
Nouri.

Staying with the political crisis, if
the Western media has made one mistake repeatedly in the last few
months, it has been the failure to understand the political crisis. Or
maybe they understand it and just don't care to convey it properly?
The political crisis in Iraq did not start December 19th or 21st as
Nouri went after political rivals from Iraqiya (Iraqiya came in first in
the 2010 elections). From Marina Ottaway and Danial Kaysi's [PDF
format warning] "The State Of Iraq" (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace):

Within
days of the official ceremonies marking the end of the U.S. mission in
Iraq, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki moved to indict Vice President
Tariq al-Hashemi on terrorism charges and sought to remove Deputy Prime
Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq from his position, triggering a major political
crisis that fully revealed Iraq as an unstable, undemocractic country
governed by raw competition for power and barely affected by
institutional arrangements. Large-scale violence immediately flared up
again, with a series of terrorist attacks against mostly Shi'i targets
reminiscent of the worst days of 2006.

But
there is more to the crisis than an escalation of violence. The tenuous
political agreement among parties and factions reached at the end of
2010 has collapsed. The government of national unity has stopped
functioning, and provinces that want to become regions with autonomous
power comparable to Kurdistan's are putting increasing pressure on the
central government. Unless a new political agreement is reached soon,
Iraq may plunge into civil war or split apart.

This
month has seen Nouri even the score on the results of the 2010
elections by going after the Independent High Electoral Commission
which, in 2010, refused to falsify the results in Nouri's favor. So last
week, Nouri had the commission chair Farah al-Haidari and commission
member Karim al-Tamimi arrested. But, don't worry, Jalal assures us
Nouri's not becoming a dictator. In fairness, maybe what Jalal meant was
that Nouri was already a dicatator, not headed towards becoming one?

Al Mada reports
that Ayad Allawi (leader of Iraqiya) notes that the options of ending
the political crisis include a true partnership in government,
implementing the Erbil Agreement, moving towards early elections or
Nouri can step down as prime minister.

As the crisis continues, criticism mounts. As Sheikh (Dar Addustour) observes
that participants appear to have lost site of the priorities, that
there is a lack of vision and all it's about now is the political
process and not about Iraqis or the country. What usually happens around
now is that the Kurds and Iraqiya heed the call to be 'reasonable' and
'mature.' They put aside differences and Nouri continues acting exactly
the same. If anything's going ot change, this time Nouri's the one who's
going to have to give.

Syria
is a neighbor of Iraq. Iraq remains neutral on the issue of war on
Syria or no war on Syria. They remain neutral for a number of reasons
including fear of huge influx of refugees and also the fear that taking
sides would further harden divisions inside Iraq, existing divisions.
Yesterday the US Congress discussed Syria. Appearing before the House
Armed Services Committee were Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and the
Chair of the Joint-Chiefs General Martin Dempsey.

US
House Rep Walter Jones: Mr. Secretary, if the situation changes and
you believe the use of force in Syria becomes necessary, will this
administration seek authorization from Congress before taking action?

Secretary
Leon Panetta: We will, uh -- We will clearly work with Congress if it,
uh -- if it, comes to the issue of force. I think this administration
wants to work within the War Powers Provision to make sure that we work
together, not separately.

US
House Rep Walter Jones: Mr. Secretary, as a former member of Congress
-- I have the biggest concern and this is not pointed at this
administration, it could be at any administration -- they seem to want
to take the authority to decide whether or not they need to go into a
country that's not been a threat. They may have evil dictators, they
might have problems in those countries. But I have been very
concerned. I actually went to the federal courts for [US House Rep]
Dennis Kucinich and two other Republicans and two other Democrats. We
went to the courts because of the decision and how it was made -- I
realize you were not there at the time [Panetta was heading the CIA,
Robert Gates was the Secretary of Defense] -- about Libya. I continue
to believe -- and the American people seem to agree -- that we in
Congress have not exercted our Constitutional responsibilities when it
comes to war. And I hate that if there is a decision -- including Iran
and Syria -- if a decision is made to commit American forces that the
president would feel an obligation to the American people -- not to
Congress necessarily, but the American people -- to explain and justify
why we would take that kind of action. And, again, I'm talking about a
situation where we're not being attacked, we just see things
happening in other countries that we don't approve of. And I would hope
-- and I think you did give me this answer, but if you would
reaffirm -- that if we have to use military force and we're going to
initiate that force, it's going to be our initation that causes
that force, that the president, any president, would come to Congress
and the American people and justify the need to attack.

Secretary
of Defense Leon Panetta: Congressman, as-as you understand uh-uh-uh
this president -- as other presidents will -- will operate pursuant to
the Constitution. The Constitution makes clear that the Commander in
Chief should, uh, act when the vital interests of this country are in
jeopardy. Uh-and-uh I believe this president believes that if that in
fact is the case he would do that in partnership with the Congress in
terms of taking any action.

US
House Rep Walter Jones: Well I'll make another statement and then I'll
work towards a close, Mr. Chairman [Buck McKeon]. I remember my good
friend [US House Rep] Randy Forbes from Viriginia asked Secretary Gates
when we went in [Libyan War], it seemed like the administration, if they
called the leadership of the House and Senate, it must have been one
call each house, each Senate. And Mr. Forbes asked Mr. Gates, if the
Libyans fired a missile in New York City would that be an act of war?
And I have to say, because my friend from Virginia is very articulate
and very intelligent gentleman, that he never got a straight answer.
So I hope that you will prevail upon the administration not to take
those kinds of actions as they did in Libya -- whether it was justified
or not, I won't get into that debate. But, in my opinion, that was
really a kind of snub of Congress and the responsibility of Congress --
based on the Constitution.

Secretary
Leon Panetta: Congressman, what I can assure you of is that, as long as
I am Secretary, we won't take any action without proper legal
authority.

One of the
most disgusting things about the hearing was realizing how the coin had
flipped. Meaning that if Bully Bush were still in the White House, US
House Rep Rob Andrews (Democrat from New Jersey) would have followed up
Walter Jones' questions by attempting to hit on the main points.
Instead, with the Oval Office occupied by a Democrat, Andrews felt the
need was to take wiggle room, shake it out repeatedly and turn wiggle
room into a summer getaway home. Our 'national interests' Andrews
wanted it known, were reasons to go to war and, of course, Panetta
agreed. That's a different standard then 'you are attacked.' In fact,
that's even worse, this must be the Obama Doctrine, than Bully Boy Bush
claiming he had the right to declare war on someone he thought might
harm the US in the future -- near or distant. Barack's policy -- as
discussed by Andrews and Panetta -- allows war for no threat. Just the
idea that you might do something, as a country, that isn't in the US'
national interests. Andrews defined national interest with "the weaker
Hezbollah is, the better the United States is" and Panetta agreed and
went on to add that "anything to weaken a terrorist organization is in
our best interest." And these are the grounds for war? How sickening
two little War Hawks all but mounting one another in public.

Republican J. Randy Forbes tried to get the conversation back to reality.

US
House Rep J. Randy Forbes: When we talk about vital national
interests, probably there's no greater vital interest that we have than
the rule of law. So sometimes we have to just ferret that out and see
what that is. As I understand what you have indicated to this
Committee, Mr. Secretary -- and correct me if I'm wrong, you believe
that before we would take military action against Syria that it would be
a requirement to have a consensus of permission with the international
community before that would happen? Is that a fair statement? And if
not, would you tell me what the proper --

US
House Rep J. Randy Forbes: If that's fair, than I'd like to come back
to the question Mr. Jones asked, just so we know. I know you would
never do anything that you didn't think was legally proper and you said
the administration would have proper, legal authority before they would
take military action. So my question is what is proper, legal
authority? And I come back to -- as Mr. Jones pointed out -- in the
War Powers Act, it's unlikely we would have a declaration of war. But
that would be one of the things. Certainly we know if there's a
national attack that would be one of them. And the second thing in the
War Powers Act would be specific statutory authorization. Do you feel
that it would be a requirement to have proper legal authority? That if
you did not have a declaration of war or an attack on the United States,
that you would have to have specific statutory authority -- in other
words, the permission of Congress, before you'd take military action?

Secretary Leon Panetta: We would not take action without proper legal authority. That's --

US
House Rep J. Randy Forbes: And I understand. And in all due respect, I
don't want to put you in an interrogation. But we're trying to find
out what exactly proper legal authoirty is because that's what we have
to act under. And we don't have the president here to chat with him or
have a cup of coffee with him and ask him. You're the closest we get.
And so we're asking for your understanding and as Secretary of Defense
what is proper legal authority? Would that require specific statutory
authorization from the United States Congress if we had not had a
declaration of war or an attack upon the United States?

Secretary
Leon Panetta: Well, again, let me put it on this basis. Uh, this
administration intends to operate pursuant to the War Power Act. And
whatever the War Powers Act would require in order for us to engage, we
would abide by.

US
House Rep J. Randy Forbes: And, again, Mr. Secretary, thank you for
putting up with me as I just try to stumble through this and understand
it. But as I read the War Powers Act, it has those three requirements.
Are there any other requirements in there that you're familiar with
that I'm leaving out or not reading?

Secretary Leon Panetta: No.

US
House Rep J. Randy Forbes:If that's the case, then again I just come
back to, if there's no declaration of war, no attack upon the United
States and if we're going to comply with the War Powers Act would that
require specific statutory authority by Congress before we took military
actions?

Secretary
Leon Panetta: Again, under the Constitution, as I indicated, the
commander in chief has the authority to take action that involves the
vital interests of this country. But then pursuant to the War Powers
Act, we would have to take steps to get Congressional approval. And
that's -- that's the process that we would follow.

US
House Rep J. Randy Forbes: Uhm, you'd have to take steps to get that
approval but would the approval be required before you would take
military action against Syria?

Secretary
Leon Panetta: As I understand the Constitution and the power of the
president, the president could in fact deploy forces if he to under --
if-if-if our vital interests were at stake. But then, under the War
Powers Act, we would have to come here for your support and permission.

US House Rep J. Randy Forbes: So you get the support of Congress after you begin military operations.

Secretary Leon Panetta: In that -- In that particular situation, yes.

US
House Rep J. Randy Forbes:Then just one last thing and make sure I'm
stating this correctly, it's your position that the administration's
position would be that we'd have to get a consensus of permission from
the international community before we would act but we wouldn't have to
get specific statutory authority from Congress before we would act.

Secretary
Leon Panetta: Well I think in that situation, if international action
is taken pursuant to a [UN] security council resolution or under our
treaty obligations with regards to NATO that obviously we would
participate with the international community. But then ultimately the
Congress of the United States, pursuant to its powers of the purse,
would be able to determine whether or not that action is appropriate or
not.

Panetta's song and
dance wasn't amusing. And the War Powers Act did not matter to the
White Houe when it came to the Libyan War. (Panetta's exchange with
Andrews suggested it wouldn't matter with regards to Libya.) For those
who've forgotten the illegality of the Libyan War, we're dropping back
to an episode of Law and Disorder Radio-- which began airing on WBAI July 11th and around the country throughout that week. Attorneys and hosts Heidi Boghosian, Michael S. Smith and Michael Ratner (Center for Constitutional Rights) discussed a number of issues including impeachment. Excerpt.

Michael
Smith: Michael, the actions that the Obama administration took against
Libya is really a perversion of the law. Explain what they did in
order to justify not going to Congress.

Michael
Ratner: Well the use of military force by the president has to be
authorized by Congress under the United States Constitution. That's
very clear. And it's not just war, it's use of -- it's hostilities,
it's really any military action anywhere in the world other than in
self-defense. So we start from the premise that military actions,
whether in Libya, killing people in Somolia or Yemen, etc., has to be
authorized by Congress. In some cases the president claimed that the
authorization to use military force passed in 2001 -- after 9/11 -- gave
him authority. But in other cases, he's just asserting raw, naked
power. He's claiming that because these don't amount to large wars that
the Constitution doesn't apply and he doesn't have to go to Congress.
Now then what happened because this is a common claim of presidents
whether it's in Libya or Somolia, Congress after Vietnam built in a
safety trigger. They said, "Lookit, you still need our consent to go
to war, or to go into hostilities or bomb people, etc. But we're going
to put in a safety trigger. If you do that, if you engage in
hostilities and you don't come to us first like you're required to do
under the Constitution, then you have sixty days to come back to us and
get authority or within sixty days all troops have to be automatically
withdrawn." So it's a safety figure because they knew the president
would do exactly what Obama is doing, violate the Constitution. They put
in a safety trigger that said you have sixty days to get authority, if
you don't have authority then you then have 30 more days to get all the
troops out, a total of 90 days. So in the case of Libya, of course, the
90 days have passed and the War Powers Resolution had required that all
those troops be brought out. So we had a sort of double system. Is
that clear, Michael?

Michael
Smith: Well as a practical matter, the political will in this country
is lacking to do anything. Technically what he did is a crime and he
can be impeached for it and tried and gotten out of office but I don't
think that's going to happen.

Michael
Ratner: It's a high crime or misdemeanor. It's true violation of the
Constitution, it's a violation of Congressional statute, you could
impeach him. But good luck. We've never -- we've never successfully
impeached anybody. I mean, we had, you know, Andrew Johnson after the
Civil War was at least tried and acquitted eventually but I think that
was the case. Nixon, rather than be impeached, resigned. Clinton made
it through. Bush made it through. So what do you say, Michael? It
looks like it's not a really good lever.

Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Uma Thurman joined the cast two episodes ago. The one that aired Monday (you can stream it and other Smash episodes at the link) was about Rebecca Duval (her character).

She couldn't sing.

Or so we thought.

She was hoping to convince them to change the musical to more of a drama.

When that didn't happen, she asked for the songs to be brought down to lower keys and started working with a vocal coach and more than redeemed herself.

Uma was pretty good in the role too.

Ellis was up to his usual. Including whining. to Eileen that Rebecca's assistants thought he worked for them. She told him he could use proximity and work that. She also read up on the bartender. (Last week, Ellis did snooping and tried to present her with it. She didn't want it. But then she did and didn't want him to know.)

Eileen (Anjelica Huston) looked the best this episode she has all season. They had her dressed right and her hair fixed perfect.

She and her bartender came to an understanding. Good because she needs a relationship that's rewarding after having to put up with those crazies all day (Ellis, Ivy, etc).

Derek's still seeing Marilyn Monroe when he looks at Karen.

Karen and Dev are pretty much over. They're still living together. But she asks him to go to the movies with her and he blew her off and went out drinking with that NYT reporter who is always flirting with him.

Julia (Debra Messing) had to deal with Leo's problems which meant dealing with her husband. There's no point in recapping the session with the school counselor but Debra had some nice moments there as she refused to hide or conceal.

Tom?

Oh, he is annoying.

He's with Sam now. Sam gave him a lecture about how waiting was good. How they should do things his way.

We were supposed to find this charming; however, I doubt most women did. As a general rule, when a man tells us we should do things his way, he's a controlling nightmare.

Ivy? She got to come back in some unspecified role. She's trying to destroy Karen and they had a fight. (When Ivy thought it would be funny to suggest Dev was cheating.)

Last thing, when Rebecca wanted more drama before songs, Eileen told them the scenes would be re-written. Derek looked to Tom and Julia and Tom pointed at Julia. I thought Julia was writing all the scenes.

Wednesday,
April 18, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, US officials visit the
region, a US official may have engaged in sex in a public place in
Iraq, that US official may have been someone Barack Obama's currently
nominating for a major appointment, the political crisis continues,
suicides and 'suicides' plague Iraq, and more.

Governor
Lincoln Chafee: They're doing well. The Rhode Islanders are doing
well. And, for the families, hang in there, they'll be home soon.

Steve
Klamkin: With the governors of Michigan and South Dakota, Chafee
visited a forward operating base in Iraq There's been a series of
Taliban attacks in Afghanistan even before the group arrived.

Governor
Lincoln Chafee: That's really the frustration they voiced with us.
Just who is setting the IEDs? Where are the Tablian? How do they mix
in the local population which are right outside the walls, they're
right their surrounding where all these Rhode Islanders are?

Steve
Klamkin: Chafee, who opposed the war in Iraq, thinks the Afghans will
be able to control their own destiny when US troops pull out next
year. Steve Klamkin, WPRO News.

Major Matthew Davis (Defense Video & Imagery Distribution System) reports
on their visit in Kuwait yesterday where they met with "National Guard
and Reserve service members" "from Michigan and other states who
supported U.S. operations during the drawdown of forces from Iraq, and
ongoing logistic operations in connection with Operating Enduring
Freedom in Kuwait.

What
if a video existed that showed a prominent State Department VIP on the
roof of the Republican Palace in Baghdad receiving, um, pleasure of an
oral nature from another State Department officer not his wife, or even
his journalist mistress of the time? What if that video has been passed
around among Marine Security Guards at the Embassy to the point where
it is considered "viral" with many copies made? What if the Deputy
Chief of Mission, hand in hand with the Diplomatic Security chief (RSO)
at the time, decided that the whole thing needed to be swept under the
rug and made to go away, at least until some blogger got a hold of it.

Would
that count as poor judgement? What if it was published during his
oft-delayed Congressional hearings? Funny that State aggressively
punishes some extramarital fooling around while ignoring other, er, well-documented cases.Or
would the State Department once again excuse the act itself and instead
punish the person who made the act public, claiming THAT was the
example of poor judgement, the crime of not hiding State's dirty
laundry at a sensitive time?

Of the rumor Van Buren's floating, Michael Hastings (BuzzFeed) observes,
"His description, however, contains clues: The location in the
Republican Palace, and the delayed confirmation hearings in particular.
That could only refer to a small handful of officials, and among those
who fit that description is the high-profile nominee to be the next
ambassador to Iraq, Brett McGurk." Author and journalist Michael
Hastings has reported from Afghanistan and from Iraq and if he's seeing
clues to Brett McGurk being the star of the rumor, he's got the
background to suss out the rumor.

McGurk is US
President Barack Obama's controversial nominee for US Ambassador to
Iraq. No, after Chris Hill, it didn't seem likely we'd be again be
referring to a controversial or questionable nominee for this post;
however, here we are. McGurk has won some praise and backing since the
nomination was announced. For example, Peter Feaver (Foreign Policy) feels his friend McGurk is qualified. Jake Cusak (Forbes) also endorsed McGurk who he hailed as "an old acquaintance."

However,
outside of roll dogs, Brett McGurk hasn't had a lot of people singing
his praises. As we've noted before, he's got no background in
administrative supervision but Barack wants to put him over the State
Dept's largest project -- most employees, biggest budget. He's held no
supervisory post, he's held no financial post either. On the latter,
he'd be responsible for the yearly $6 billion budget the State Dept
gets for Iraq And that's before you get into the tensions and violence
that continue in Iraq.

McGurk has headed NO
mission in a foreign country before. But he's supposed to start -- and
get on-the-job training? -- with Iraq? He doesn't speak Arabic. What
traits does he have that makes him worthy of this important post?

Americans
need to be asking that because over $6 billion US tax dollars will be
wasted each year on Iraq for the foreseeable future unless something
changes. Wasted? The State Dept sent someone a notch above intern to
testify at a hearing they wanted to avoid. The young woman noted that
the primary purpose of the mission -- besides a lot of airty talk --
was to train the Iraqi police. Dropping back to the October 4, 2006 snapshot:

CNN reports
that it's time for retraining. As though deciding to let 'death squads'
pass your security check point is akin to not knowing how to use the
office copier. AFP reports they're on a US military base being retrained. BBC reports:
"A programme has been under way for more than a month for comprehensive
assessment and re-training of all national police unites -- a process
called by the Americans 'transofrmational training.'" James Hider (Times of London) reports
that since 2004, "US forces have been re-training the Iraqi police, but
the programme has had little impact" and that a "survivor of Monday's
mass kidnapping . . . described how half a dozen vehicles, with
official security forces markings on them, pulled up and men in
military fatigues rounded up all the Sunnis in the shops."

We covered the November 30th House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the MiddleEast and South Asia in the December 1st snapshot
and noted that Ranking Member Gary Ackerman had several questions. He
declared, "Number one, does the government of Iraq -- whose personnel
we intend to train -- support the [police training] program?
Interviews with senior Iaqi officials by the Special Inspector General
show utter didain for the program. When the Iraqis sugest that we take
our money and do things instead that are good for the United States. I
think that might be a clue." The State Dept's Brooke Darby faced that
Subcommittee. Ranking Member Gary Ackerman noted that the US had
already spent 8 years training the Iraq police force and wanted Darby
to answer as to whether it would take another 8 years before that
training was complete? Her reply was, "I'm not prepared to put a time
limit on it." She could and did talk up Deputy Minister of the
Ministry of Interior Adnan al-Asadi as a great friend to the US
government. But Ackerman and Subcommittee Chair Steve Chabot had
already noted Adnan al-Asadi, but not by name. That's the Iraqi
official, for example, Ackerman was referring to who made the
suggestion "that we take our money and do things instead that are good
for the United States." He made that remark to SIGIR Stuart Bowen.

Brooke
Darby noted that he didn't deny that comment or retract it; however,
she had spoken with him and he felt US trainers and training from the
US was needed. The big question was never asked in the hearing: If the
US government wants to know about this $500 million it is about to
spend covering the 2012 training of the Ministry of the Interior's
police, why are they talking to the Deputy Minister?

The
US State Dept is not ready to put a time limit on it, by their own
words. How long does the 'training' continue? How many years and how
many billions? If it's really not clear to you, let's drop back to the
House Foreign Relations Committee hearing of December 1st for this exchange.

Ranking Member Gary Ackerman: When will they be willing to stand up without us?

Brooke Darby: I wish I could answer that question.

Ranking Member Gary Ackerman: Then why are we spending money if we don't have the answer?

[long pause]

Ranking
Member Gary Ackerman: You know, this is turning into what happens after
a bar mitzvah or a Jewish wedding. It's called "a Jewish goodbye."
Everybody keeps saying goodbye but nobody leaves.

The
State Dept already can't answer basic questions regarding Iraq. And
the White House wants to put the questionable McGurk in charge? Liz Sly (Washington Post) noted objection to the nomination in Iraq:

Sunni
concerns have crystallized in recent weeks around Obama's nomination of
Brett McGurk, 38, a lawyer who has frequently advised the U.S. Embassy
but is not a diplomat to be the new ambassador to Iraq. As the chief
adviser to Ambassador James F. Jeffrey and former ambassador
Christopher R. Hill, McGurk is closely associated with the United
States' controversial 2010 decision to support Maliki's candidacy as
the better hope for future stability over that of Ayad Allawi, the head
of the Iraqiya bloc, which narrowly won the most seats in parliament.

Should the Van Buren rumor be true and should it be about Brett McGurk, would that manage to sink the nomination?

Iraq's already struggling, it's really not the place where the US should send someone on a glorified travel-study.

In
Iraq, though there's hope for recent (small) success with strawberries,
the reality is that even the date palm industry in Iraq hasn't proved
profitable yet ("yet" meaning post-invasion, Iraq's date industry is
historically signficant and profitable). So despite years and years of
calls by Iraqi Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi to diversify the
economy, Iraq remains dependent on their sole money maker: Oil. Reuters reports,
"Exxon Mobil has told Baghdad it will not break ground on its oil blocs
in the semi-autonomous Kurdish north until the centeral government
approves the contracts, Iraq's top energy official said on Wednesday."
The official is Deputy Prime Minister for Energy Hussain
al-Shahristani. That alone makes the claim questionable -- remember, April 3rd,
he was in the news for insisting the Kurds were secretly selling oil to
Iran. He's not seen as someone impartial or particularly honest.

But
the reality is that it doesn't matter if he's telling the truth this
time or not. Yet again, the world watches, the markets watch as Iraq's
rulers can't get their act together. It does not put confidence in
either the government or in the ability to do business with Iraq.
Contracts were signed by ExxonMobil back in October with the KRG.
Either those contracts will be honored or they won't.

But
you're an energy company -- oil and gas -- and you can spend a year
developing a relationship with another country rich in oil or you can
spend that time on Iraq -- and know that a signed contract may mean
nothing. Are you really going to make Iraq your focus after you know
their history with ExxonMobil?

What Nouri
and the idiots he's appointed don't grasp is that their petty fights
and bickering make them look unreliable and unprofessional. And that
goes beyond the oil industry. You're on an Australian committee
exploring opening a Quay Hotel in the Middle East. In the discussions,
someone tosses out Iraq. You point out that besides the continued
daily violence, there's also all the problems ExxonMobil's faced in
getting a signed contract honored. You'll be much more likely to
recommend that Quay consider Kuwait or Jordan where a signed contract
appears to actually mean something other than months and months of
officials bickering in the press.

On a very
limited scale, strawberries are doing well in Iraq (as a result of a
lot of help -- money and technology -- from USAID). 2012 is an
important year for that industry. At the end of it, figures will
indicate whether or not this is a stand-alone industry that can
successfully supports itself or whether the limited success resulted
from USAID. Right now, the only money making story is oil and with no
real leader to lead, the bickering and the non-stop 'updates' on the
ExxonMobil deal ensure that Iraq looks like it's not ready for the
world stage. In Nouri were any kind of a leader, he would have ended
this nonsense a long time ago -- even if that meant going along with
the KRG contracts that he didn't want to go through. Instead, it
looks like a circus and this as James Herron (Dow Jones) announces,
"Iraq has revised its medium-term oil field redevelopment plan, meaning
that production will peak slightly lower than the previous 12 million
barrel a day target, but, said the country's Deputy Prime Minister for
Energy, Hussein al-Shahristani, Wednesday." And Dow Jones reports, "Iraq
wants to follow the current expansion of its oil production capacity
with an expansion of its domestic refining industry, but won't be able
to do so without the cooperation of international companies, said the
country's Deputy Prime Minister for Energy Hussein al-Shahristani
Wednesday."

In bad news for Nouri, Al Mada reports
that Speaker of Parliament Osama Najafi states that the National
Alliance has confirmed that they support the full implementation of the
Erbil Agreement. April 5th,
KRG President Massoud Barzani noted the Erbil Agreement while speaking
at an event sponsored by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

KRG
President Massoud Barzani: We have been waiting for the last six years
for promises that were not delivered, for agreements that were not
honored. We have waited and everytime they give us an excuse. Once they
say that there are elections in Baghdad, another time, elections in the
region. Once there is election in the United States. Then there is the
Arab Summit, etc., etc. We have found out that we have passed six years
waiting for these promises to be delivered. We cannot anymore wait for
unfulfilled promises and undelivered promises. There has to be a
specific and determined timeline for this to be delivered. We got tired
of this and we are fed up with that. Therefore, what we will do is that
we will work on the preferred option to work with the other Iraqi
groups to find a solution. If not, then we go back to our people and to
put all of these realities inf ront of our people for the people to be
free to make their own decision. As far as the issue of the oil is
concerned, in 2007, when we were working and we reached an agreement on
a draft oil hydrocarbons law, we both agreed that if that law did not
pass in the Parliament until May that same year that both sides -- the
KRG and the federal government -- are free to continuing signing
contracts with international oil companies. Therefore, whatever we have
done in the region, we have not violated the Constitution. We have
acted legally and Constitutionally within the framework of the
Constitution.

Political Stalemate I is
the eight month period which followed the March 2010 elections. Nouri
refused to step aside despite the fact that his State of Law had come
in second in the elections to Iraqiya. He wanted to remain prime
minister. And the US government and the Iranian government were backing
him -- backing him over the Iraqi people and the will they expressed at
the ballot box. In November 2010, the US-brokered Erbil Agreement was
signed off on by all major political blocs. Nouri got to be prime
minister for a second term and, in exchange, he made certain
concessions. Among them, he would agree to an independent national
security commission to be headed by Ayad Allawi (leader of Iraqiya) and
he would finally abide by the Constitution (Article 140) and allow the
census and referendum on Kirkuk. Nouri got his second term and promptly
refused to follow the Erbil Agreement throwing Iraq into Political
Stalemate II which has now lasted 16 months (December 2010 to the
present). Since the summer, the Kurds have been calling on Nouri to
return to the Erbil Agreement. Iraqiya has joined the call as has
Moqtada al-Sadr. Moqtada is part of the National Alliance as is State
of Law. Amir al-Hakim's Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq is also part of
the National Alliance (ISCI, State of Law and Moqtada's bloc are the
three largest components of the National Alliance).

Al Sabaah reports
that the National Alliance is meeting today and the meeting has been
labeled as "important." Among the items to be discussed are the
relationship between Baghdad and the KRG. Hiwa Osman (Rudaw) reports on the tensions including:

Speaking
to Rudaw, Shwan Muhammad, a Kurdish member of Iraqi Parliament, said,
"In Iraq, no component has a major role. Nouri Maliki alone has
monopolized all the powers in the ranks of the army and internal
security forces."Muhammad believes that although a Kurd, Babakr Zebari, Iraq's military chief of staff, must still answer to the prime minister."All the powers are concentrated in the hands of the commander in chief (Maliki)," says Muhammad.Muhammad
admits that a Kurd is in charge of the air force, but Maliki has
created a special unit called "military aviation" that is run by people
very close to him. This unit is said to have full control of 500
helicopters."The air force
whose commander is a Kurd does not even have an aircraft," said
Muhammad, who is also a member of the defense and security committee in
Iraq's parliament.Barzani
and some of Iraq's Sunni leaders believe PM Maliki has brought most of
Iraq's major institutions, such as the Ministry of Defense, national
intelligence and the central bank, under his direct control, which they
argue is unconstitutional.

As part of his continued power
grab, last Thursday Nouri had the Independent High Electoral
Commission's chair Farah al-Haidari and commission member Karim
al-Tamimi arrested. Al Mada notes
that as a result of these arrests, the United Nation's
Secretary-General's Special Envoy to Iraq Martin Kobler states that it
is unlikely the Parliament will now vote on the new commissioners for
the Independent High Electoral Commission. As explained yesterday, State of Law is throwing up roadblocks to prevent the vote in Parliament.

Meanwhile Aswat al-Iraq notes,
"Sadrist leader Muqtada al-Sadr called his followers to unify ranks if
they desire to form their own government." In addition to targeting
the Independent High Electoral Commission, Nouri's also insisted that
Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq be stripped of his post and that
Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi be arrested for 'terrorism.'

Replying
to questions of AA correspondent, Hashemi claimed that the lawsuit
filed against him was a political one and he would not stand trial in
Iraqi capital of Baghdad. Hashemi said he believed that a fair trial
would not be held in the capital. Witnesses' statements against
him have been obtained by means of torture, he said and adding that one
of his bodyguards was tortured and killed. Hashemi said that he could not receive a fair trial in Baghdad, because the courts have been controlled by Maliki, he said. He said he has offered to stand trial in Kirkuk, but the government refused it. "The
case filed against me was a political one since the beginning. Thus its
solution had to be political. President, prime minister and parliament
speaker should come together and find a political solution to it," he
said.

JA:
One of the problems has been that one of your deputies, Tariq
al-Hashemi, who was given refuge here in the Kurdish region and allowed to leave in spite of an arrest warrant. Will you allow him to come back to Kurdistan?'

Talabani:
I would like to explain to you - Mr Hashemi is the first vice-president
- I appointed him first. He came to a meeting with another
vice-president, Dr Kuzai. When he came here, the court asked him to go
to court. He didn't prefer to go to court - he said: "I am afraid in
Baghdad to go to court." We asked them to change [the venue] and they
refused. I don't know if he will come back here, or stay outside. This
issue - my opinion was [to] solve it through dialogue with the leaders
of Iraq. Because if he goes to court, he will be sentenced - we don't
want him to be sentenced. We also need a kind of consensus about his
problem. Maybe some of his bodyguards committed some crimes, but Tariq
Hashemi is still vice-president. He was not sentenced, and any man
until he is sentenced is considered to be innocent. He's not convicted.

Trend News Agency reports
KRG President Massoud Barzani will visit Turkey Turkey and "meet with
Turkish Preisdent Abdullah Gul, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and
Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu" and "Sources say that during his
visit to Turkey Barzani will also meet with al-Hashemi, for whom the
Shiite-led central government issued an arrest warrant in late 2011." Press TV maintains of Tareq al-Hashemi, "He
has recently met with Erdogan to discuss the developments in Iraq and
asked for Ankara's political support. Hashemi has also asked for
Ankara's protection since he has received death threats and is said to
be guarded by more than a dozen security forces. The Turkish
government has settled Hashemi, his family, and those accompanying him
in two houses in Basak, Istanbul, while Jordan has not responded to the
Iraqi official's asylum appeal."

Iraq and its neighbors. The
Arab League Summit met in Baghdad March 29th. Less than half of the
heads of state bothered to show. A number of Arab countries chose to
send a message by not attending. The one thing Nouri was able to
flaunt was his new closeness with Kuwait. But it's a kind-of-push,
kind-of-pull relationship. An Iraqi correspondent for McClatchy Newspapers points out:

The first Kuwaiti flight to Iraq in more than twenty years landed in Najaf Airport today.

But
why in the southern, holy city of Najaf and not in Baghdad? Officials
said that trips to Baghdad will be the next step, withought mentioning
details.

After the significant role Kuwait
played in the occupation of Iraq in 2003, one would have thought that
its relations with the new Iraqi leaders would have been "chummy" - At
least that's what many Iraqis thought. But the truth of the matter is
that relations between Iraq and Kuwait are still "strained".

Yesterday, a man apparently hanged himself in Basra. Al Rafidayn reports
the man was 38-years-old, had a wife and four children. He is thought
to be the seventh man in the area who has taken their own life due to
poverty in the last six months. Although Basra is well known for its
fishing industry, lack of government support and conflict with Iran and
Kuwait fishing industries have left Basra's industry reeling. Basra is
in southern Iraq.

Another province in southern Iraq is Dhi Qar Province which is also experiencing suicides. Al Sabaah reports
there's a suicide or 'suicide' epidemic taking place. Those allegedly
taking their own lives? Young girls under the age of 18. There are
accusations that the police are in partnership with families to cover
up the fact that these girls are not suicides but have been killed --
possibly so-called 'honor' killings. There are also allegations that
the girls are taking their own lives but doing so because they are
being denied their basic freedoms and pushed into forced marriages by
their families. Local citizen Ahmed Saidi maintains that most are not
suicides and "90 percent are murders." The province saw 13 suicides in
2011 of young girls between the ages of 15 and 18 while, already this
month, there have been 2 young females who have died and are said to
have taken their own lives. Feminist Shada Qaisi states that the
society lacks the communication skills to deal openly with these deaths
and she also states that the police are more than willing to see a
killing as suicide and not open an investigation into the death of a
young girl. The police department refused to comment to the paper.

In the United States, Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. Her office notes:

Legislation would strengthen U.S. Department of Justice's ability to enforce current laws

(Washington,
D.C.) -- Today, with high unemployment and foreclosure rates continuing
to affect our nation's veterans and servicemembers, U.S. Senator Patty
Murray (D-WA), Chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee,
introduced the Servicemembers Rights Enforcement Improvement Act of
2012. Currently, many of the protections put in place to help shield
our nation's heroes -- specifically the Uniformed Services Employment
and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) and the Servicemembers Civil
Relief Act (SCRA) -- have been violated in a disturbing number of cases
within the past several years. Co-sponsoring Chairman Murray's
legislation are Senators Daniel Akaka (D-HI), Mark Begich (D-AK), Jay
Rockefeller (D-WV) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI).

The
Servicemembers Rights Enforcement Improvement Act, which includes a
significant number of proposals provided to the Congress by the U.S.
Department of Justice (DoJ), would strengthen DoJ's ability to enforce
these laws on behalf of servicemembers and veterans.

"Our
men and women in uniform serve with tremendous dignity on the
battlefield," said Chairman Murray. "Our nation owes it to them to
guarantee protection under the law wh when they return home. The
Servicemembers Rights Enforcement Act will help force the hand of those
who have failed to follow the law when it comes to providing our
nation's heroes with the basic safeguards they deserve."

'"Our
nation's growing reliance on the National Guard and Reserves for
operational duties here and overseas means that our warrior-citizens
must have airtight reemployment rights and financial protections when
they are called to the colors, "said VADM Norb Ryan, President,
Military Officers Assocication of America (MOAA). "The Military
Officers Association of America strongly supports the 'Servicemembers
Rights Enforcement Improvement Act of 2012' and urges quick passage of
the bill to strengthen enforcement of the rights of those who defend
the rest of America."

"Millions of service
members depend on USERRA and SCRA protections when called to serve
their country," said Commander Fang Won, American Legion. "USERRA and
SCRA were created to prohibit discrimination and eliminate
disadvantages faced by deployed service members. This legislation will
strengthen the enforcement on USERRA and SCRA. This bill confirms a
tremendous need for transparency and effective consequences for
non-compliance of USERRA and SCRA regulations and ensure that veterans
are not disadvantaged or unable to return to their previous jobs due to
their honorable service to our Nation."

"IAVA
strongly supports Senator Murray's efforts to bolster the
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) and Uniformed Services
Employment and Re-employment Rights Act (USERRA)," said Paul Rieckhoff,
Founder and Executive Director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of
America (IAVA). "Servicemembers who currentlys eek relief under these
acts often face significant roadblocks. Even if a violation exists, it
can be difficult and expensive for vets to challenge employers armed
with greater legal and financial resources. This bill will empower the
Attorney General to investigate and compel employers to respond to
USERRA complaints. More importantly, it will allow the Attoreny
General to better represent service members who have a case. Both
steps are absolutely critical to open doors for new veterans and ensure
they come home to the job security they deserve after serving our
country."

USERRA
secures servicemembers' employment rights during periods of military
service and prohibits employer discrimination based upon military
service or obligation.

To ensure that those protections are fully enforced this bill:

*
Enables the Attorney General to investigate and file suit against a
patter or practice of USERRA violatiosn by a state or private employer.

*
Allows the United States to serve as named plaintiff in USERRA suits
and to issue civil investigative demands for relevant documentary
material; and

*
Provides the Special Counsel with authority to subpoena relevant
testimony and documents from Federal employees and agencies to carry
out investigations.

Over
the past year, it has come to light that several banks improperly
overcharged and foreclosed upon deployed servicemembers in violation of
the SCRA. Failure to comply with SCRA protections is unacceptable.

This bill strengthens the statutory protections of SCRA as well as the mechanisms used to enforce them by:

*
Strengthening the protections that prevent judgments againt a
servicemember when they cannot appear in court because of military
service.

* Broadening the authority of the Attorney General to investigate allegations of SCRA violations; and

* Clarifying the right of servicemembers to bring a private law suit to assert their SCRA rights.

Tuesday, April 17, 2012

Rebecca loves Revenge and she's been going crazy with it off all these weeks. Tomorrow night it returns to ABC with new episodes, six new episodes in a row. So she'll be watching. Will you?

Will I?

I still haven't watched Smash. I'll write about it tomorrow.

A very dear friend called and left me a message at work (I was in a session) just asking if I could pop over on the way home.

Which I did.

She was putting a brave face but ay-yi-yi.

20 years of marriage -- anniversary in June -- and her husband tells her today (a) he wants a divorce, (b) he's not sure he ever loved her, (c) he feels he has wasted too many years and (d) (the standard) it's not you, it's me.

You know the "it's not you, it's me" is overplayed. But if you're going to use it, I really think it only works for dating. Once you're living together or engaged or married, I think it's too late for that phrase.

So she just wanted to see a friendly face and gave me a hug and told me to call later in the week. I grabbed the phone and told Mike I'd be late getting home. I wasn't going to leave her on that note. So we talked and talked and I hope she's okay. She'll be okay. The anger will kick in and she'll be fine. But before that happens, I am worried. (Not that she'll self-harm. She won't. But I'm worried about how much this is hurting her.)

(If you're thinking, "Gosh, Elaine, you really aren't much of a friend going into all of this!" I would agree. I don't air my personal life and I wouldn't air a friend's; however, she asked me to. She said, "Somewhere there's a woman who will read it and think, 'Thank God it's not me!' only to learn a month or two later that it is her." She made me promise her three times before she believed me that I would include this.)

I think it is good that when couples no longer feel it is worth it that they can split. The alternative is scary and we don't want that. However, the reality is most break ups tend to be one person deciding and one person learning of the break up.

I don't know what I'm thinking. Probably about my own relationship. That's what we tend to do when a friend goes through a break up: Could it be me next?

If so, it'll be me learning that it's over, not the one announcing it is.

Anyway, you can probably tell I'm just not in a good place. I really didn't see this coming and honestly thought he was a better person than he ended up being (my friend's husband).

She really didn't deserve this.

returns with new episodes tomorrow night on ABC. I told her we'd note it here as well. Now to Iraq.

Tuesday, April 17, 2012. Chaos and violence continue,
Nouri gets a press 'award' of sorts, we look at his long history of attacking
the press since he became prime minister in 2006, the White House realizes (at
least somewhat) that keeping Nouri happy won't hold Iraq together, corpses and
bombings and shooting make it appear 2006 is stating a comeback, and more.

In Nouri al-Maliki's Iraq, everyone's targeted and that
includes journalists. Nouri has long been anti-press. As we noted yesterday,
Jane Arraf (Al Jazeera -- link has
video and text) has asked Iraqi President Jalal Talabani about charges that
Prime Minister and thug Nouri al-"Maliki is on the road to becoming a dictator"
and Talabani denied the charge and stated, "There are some shortages -- it is
not only him responsible. I am also responsible. I am responsible for looking
after everything to guard the constitution. I must also speak, so we are all
responsible for the shortages in the government." Yesterday's snapshot didn't
have a working link to Jane Arraf's interview, my apologies. If Talabani agrees
Iraq is his responsibility as well, he's going to have to learn to support and
advocate on behalf of the press -- something he's never done, even before the
Iraq War.

In recent years, the
government has introduced a barrage of legislation relating to the fundamental
freedoms of expression and assembly. In some cases, this legislation appears to
be well intentioned, while in other cases positive interntions are less
apparent. Regardless, all of these new laws, most of which have not yet been
adopted, are problematical from the perspective of constitutional and
international human rights guarantees.

This Report reviews five
pieces of legislation affecting the freedoms of assembly and expression that
have been introduced in recent years in Iraq. Of these, only one, the
Journalistic Rights Law (Journalist Law), has actually been passed into law, in
August 2011. The other four -- the draft Commission of Media and Communication
Law (draft CMC Law), the draft Informatics Crimes Law (draft Internet Law), the
draft Political Parties Law (draft Parties Law) and the draft Law of Expression,
Assembly, and Peaceful Protest (draft Assembly Law) -- have not yet been
formally adopted as laws.

[. . .]

One of the most problematical
features of the five laws is that, taken together, they impose wide-ranging
restrictions on the content of what may be published or broadcast through the
media, during demonstrations, over the Internet and by political parties. These
are in addition to the many content restrictions which are still found int he
old 1969 Penal Code. A few issues receive particular attention in the new laws,
such as public morals and more issues, incitement, in particular to religious
hatred or criticism, and perhaps not surprisingly, public order and terrorism.
Many of these fail to meet the standards of international law regarding
restrictions on freedom of expression.

If a country really needed strong laws to provide a free
press, it would be Iraq. Since becoming prime minister in 2006, Nouri's done
nothing but attack the press. His disregard and hatred for it is well known and
has influenced many incidents, most infamously a New York
Times reporter had a gun aimed at them 'for fun' in the latter half of
2006, a gun aimed a pretend shot taken by one of Nouri's security forces who
found the whole incident hilarious.

Therefore the proposals aren't really that surprising.
Frightening, but not surprising. Of the proposed CMC Law, the Centre For Law
And Democracy notes it is obsessed with "public morals" while the proposed
Internet Law dictates that "moral, family or social values" must not be offended
and similar dictates apply with the proposed Assembly Law. The Centre For Law
And Democracy notes that speech that offends due to ideas can't be legitimately
banned, the speech needs to do "harm to society" -- even so, the paper should be
very clear -- and isn't -- because Nouri calls many things harmful to society
including Iraqi politicians who criticize him.

Furthermore, the prohibited
acts in these laws go well beyond public order and terrorism as normally
understood. They also include undermining the constitution, jeopardising
national interests, sending threatening or insulting messages or fabricated
news, promoting terrorist ideologies (as opposed to terrorism per se) and
publishing information about the manufacture of tools or materials usedd in
terrorists acts.

These broad prohibitions
simply cannot be justified. It is perfectly legitimate to 'undermine' (or
criticise or seek to change) the constitution, as long as this is done through
peaceful means. Otherwise, it would be a crime to seek to achiever any
amendments to the constitution. The concept of 'national interests' is
impossibly flexible. In many countries, it is a crime to make threats, but
sending insulting messages is often perfectly legitimate or at worst may warrant
a civil defamation suit. Similarly, promoting terrorism ideologies, whatever
they may be, is not the same thing as inciting terrorism, and the narrower
offence should be preferred.

Page 27 of the report notes the Journalists Rights
bill. (PDF format warning, click here for that proposed
law.) It was proposed in 2009 and modified in 2011. The modified version
defines a journalist as "Every individual practicing a full time journalism
job." This would leave out stringers, part-timers, freelancers and many other
media workers. That's not an accident. The report doesn't point it out but
Nouri's always attacked the press, always wanted them monitored as well. Let's
drop back to the October 3, 2006
snapshot:

Operation Happy Talkers are
on the move and telling you that Nouri al-Maliki offers a 'four-point' peace
plan. You may have trouble reading of the 'four-point' plan because the third
point isn't about "peace" or "democracy" so reports tend to ignore it. The first
step has already been (rightly) dismissed by Andrew
North (BBC) of the "local security
committees": "In fact, most neighourhoods of Baghdad set up their own local
security bodies some time ago to protect themselves -- because they do not trust
the authorities to look after them." AP reports that
the Iraqi parliament voted in favor of the 'peace' plan (reality
title: "continued carnage plan"). Step three? Let's drop back to the
September 7th snapshot:

["]Switching to the issue of
broadcasting, were they showing episodes of Barney
Miller or NYPD Blue? Who knows but police
pulled the plug on the satellite network al-Arabiya in Baghdad. CNN was
told by a company official (Najib Ben
Cherif) that the offices "is being shut for a month." AP is iffy on
who gave the order but notes that Nouri al-Malike started making
warnings/threats to television stations back in July. CNN
reports: "A news alert on Iraqi State TV
said the office of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki ordered the office closed for a
month."["]

Ah, yes, the puppet's war
with the press. The so-called peace plan is more of the same. The third
'plank' is about the media. Which is why the "brave" US media repeatedly cites
the first two and stays silent while a free media (something a democracy is
dependent upon) walks the plank.

It's disgusting and shameful,
the third 'plank.' The whole 'plan' is a joke. Reuters is one of the few to go beyond the first two 'steps' but even it does a really
poor job and those over coverage of Iraq in the mainstream (producers to suits)
are very concerned about this. (So why don't they report it?) The "plan" isn't
a plan for peace, it's a plan for the puppet to attempt to save his own ass for
a few more months. Lee Keath
(AP) is only
one of many ignoring the third step (possibly AP thinks readers are unable to
count to four?) but does note that al-Maliki took office last May with a
24-point plan that, to this day, "has done little to stem the daily killings."
Nor will this so-called 'peace plan.' The US
military and the American "ambassador" have announced that Nouri al-Maliki better show some results ('after all
we've paid' going unspoken).

So al-Maliki pulls a page
from Paul Bremer's book and decides to go after the media. For those who've
forgotten, on March 28, 2004, al-Hawza was closed
down as a result of running a cartoon of Bremer leading to the violence in
Falluja in April 2004.

The Guardian has won its appeal against an Iraqi court ruling which
judged that the paper had defamed the country's prime minister, Nouri
al-Maliki.

The Iraqi National
Intelligence Service (INIS) brought the libel action after the Guardian reported
criticism of al-Maliki and the INIS in an
article published in April 2009. The
Al-Karakh primary court judged in November 2009 that the report was defamatory
and ordered the Guardian to pay a fine of 100m dinar (£52,000).

However, the Iraqi appeal
court ruled on 28 December that the article did not cause any defamation or harm
to al-Maliki or the INIS, overturning the earlier court ruling.

With the above and so much more, these measures,
largely drafted by Nouri and his inner circle, are anti-press isn't surprising.
The Centre For Law And Democracy notes "we see in the collective approach of the
five laws a dramatic lack of respect for the fundamental human rights to freedom
of assembly and expression. In most cases, these rules seek to impose
unwarranted restrictions on the exercise of these rights. Taken together with
the broad content restrictions, as well as the undue degree of government
control over the exercise of these rights, the five laws would impose very
severe constraints indeed on basic human rights."

The findings are disturbing. What's even more
disturbing is that the findings really aren't new. They've very similar to what
the United Nations Assistance Mission For Iraq (UNAMI) found in the second half
of 2009 [PDF format warning] Human Rights Report. For
example:

Some of the law's provisions,
however, give rise to concern. For example, the law gives broad discretionary
power to govenrment, which could be used to restrict the right to freedom of
expression. Several porvisions of the law clearly inhibit the realization of
the rights of media workers; the prohibition of publishing materials which
"compromise the security and stability of the country" is open to broad
interpretation and may be abused by authorities. The draft law does not provide
a guarantee for the protection of sources: rather, provisions state that the law
requires the source to be revealed.

The draft law's narrow
definition of a journalist as "one who works for press . . . and who is
affiliated with the Iraqi Journalists' Syndicate" raises concerns about the
ability of other media workers, such as editors, commentators, blogger, and
freelancers to exercise their right to express their views publicly and in
effect imposes a de facto obligation to register journalists. According to the
law, media organizations operating in Iraq must issue contracts to journalists
that have been prepared and authorized by the Iraqi Journalists' Syndicate. Not
only contradicting article 39 of the Constitution which stipulates that no one
shall be compelled to join any party.

It's nearly three years later and the proposed laws
still have the same exact problems. There's been no improvement. In fact, it
has worsened. In January of this year, the
Society for Defending Press Freedom's Oday Hattem told Al Jazeera, "There is
no freedom to workin journalism here -- if we compare the jounalism in Iraq with
the West. [. . .] The political and freedom of speech situations are both
descending. Maliki launched an attack on freedom of speech in February 2010,
when he arrested tens of journalists and human rights activsts after the
beginning of demonstrations in Baghdad."

I believe he's referring to February 2011. February 25, 2011 saw major
protests in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq. It also saw Nouri crackdown on the
press and activists. From February 26, 2011:

Yesterday Iraqis made
their voices heard in multiple demonstrations. Wael Grace and Adam
Youssef (Al Mada)
report the disturbing news that after
the demonstrations, four journalists who had been reporting on the protests were
eating lunch when Iraqi security forces rushed into the restaurant and arrested
them with eye witnesses noting that they brutal attacked the journalists inside
the restaurant, cursing the journalists as they beat them with their rifle
handles. One of the journalists was Hossam Serail who says that they left Tahrir
Square with colleagues including journalists, writers intellectuals, filmmakers.
They went into the restaurant where the Iraqi military barged in, beat and
kicked them, hit them in the face and head with the handles of their rifles,
cursed the press and journalists, put him the trunk of a Hummer. This is Nouri
al-Maliki's Iraq -- the Iraq the US forces prop up at the command of the Barack
Obama. Stephanie McCrummen (Washington Post) adds:{}Four journalists who had been
released described being rounded up well after they had left a protest at
Baghdad's Tahrir Square. They said they were handcuffed, blindfolded, beaten and
threatened with execution by soldiers from an army intelligence unit. "It was
like they were dealing with a bunch of al-Qaeda operatives, not a group of
journalists," said Hussam al-Ssairi, a journalist and poet, who was among a
group and described seeing hundreds of protesters in black hoods at the
detention facility. "Yesterday was like a test, like a picture of the new
democracy in Iraq." {}

Among those arrested and tortured were journalist and
activist Hadi al-Mahdi. NPR's Kelly McEvers interviewed Hadi for
Morning Edition after he had been released and she
noted he had been "beaten in the leg, eyes, and head." He explained that he was
accused of attempting to "topple" Nouri al-Maliki's government -- accused by the
soldiers under Nouri al-Maliki, the soldiers who beat him. Excerpt:

Hadi al-Mahdi: I replied, I
told the guy who was investigating me, I'm pretty sure that your brother is
unemployed and the street in your area is unpaved and you know that this
political regime is a very corrupt one.

Kelly McEvers: Mahdi was
later put in a room with what he says were about 200 detainees, some of them
journalists and intellectuals, many of them young protesters.

Hadi al-Mahdi: I started
hearing voices of other people. So, for instance, one guy was crying, another
was saying, "Where's my brother?" And a third one was saying, "For the sake of
God, help me."

Kelly McEvers: Mahdi was
shown lists of names and asked to reveal people's addresses. He was forced to
sign documents while blindfolded. Eventually he was released. Mahdi says the
experience was worse than the times he was detained under Saddam Hussein. He
says the regime that's taken Sadam's place is no improvement on the past. This,
he says, should serve as a cautionary tale for other Arab countries trying to
oust dictators.

Hadi al-Mahdi: They toppled
the regime, but they brought the worst -- they brought a bunch of thieves,
thugs, killers and corrupt people, stealers.

September 8, 2011, Hadi
al-Mahdi was assassinated in his home. Madhi had filed a complaint with the
courts against the Iraqi security forces for their actions. Mohamed Tawfeeq (CNN)
explains, "Hadi al-Mehdi was inside his apartment on Abu Nawas street in
central Baghdad when gunmen shot him twice with silencer-equipped pistols, said
the ministry official, who did not want to be identified because he is not
authorized to speak to media."

Democracy and liberation haven't taken hold in Iraq but
targeting the press certainly did. And today Nouri al-Maliki's Iraq can boast
of one 'accomplishment' under his six years of leadership: Number one on the Committee to Protect Journalists' Impunity
Index. Rachel McAthy (CPJ)
explains:Iraq remains at the top of the
Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) Impunity Index for the fifth year in a
row, with the press freedom group reporting
that the cases of 93 journalists killed in the past 10 years remain unsolved.The latest index, published annually by the
group, lists the 12 countries that have seen at least five reporters killed with
no resulting convictions from 2002 to 2011.The CPJ
reports that Iraq's rating for impunity "dwarfs that of every other nation" with
a rating of 2.906 unsolved cases per million inhabitants.

Nouri was first named prime
minister-designate April 22, 2006. It's been six years of stalling ever since.
And it took a lot of stalling to ensure that 93 murders would go unsolved.
That's the sort of 'leadership' Nouri's provided. What a proud day for him.
What a sad day for Iraq and the press.

Staying with the topic of violence, Xinhua counts 13 dead in yesterday's violence and
nine injured. Alsumaria reports a Kirkuk
roadside bombing injured two people. And they note 1 police officer was
shot dead outisde Mosul and a small child was left injured, 1 corpse was
discovered in Dohak Province, 1 suspect was shot dead outside of Tikrit and 1
man apparently hanged himself in Basra. Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) reports Iraqiya MP
Falah al-Naqeeb reports he escaped an assassination attempt last night in Taji.
Iraqiya is headed by Ayad Allawi and is the political slate that came in first
in the March 7, 2010 parliamentary elections. Nouri al-Maliki's State of Law
came in second. Since December, Nouri's been demanding Deputy Prime Minister
Saleh al-Mutlaq be stripped of his post and that Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi
be arrested for 'terrorism.' Both al-Mutlaq and al-Hashemi are members of
Iraqiya and Sunni. al-Hashmi tells Ipek Yezdani (Hurriyet Daily News), "We are facing a highly
sensitive political crisis for the first time in nine years. If we cannot solve
this crisis through the constitution and by sitting around a table, the future
of my country will be gloomy and really worrying, and all options will be on the
table. I hope none of them splits Iraq.' Sevil Kucukkosum (Hurriyet) adds, "Meanwhile, al-Hashemi has said he
will stay in Istanbul for 'however long is
necessary' and that Iraq needs Turkey's help in solving its political crisis.
Al-Hashemi is currently residing with his family and guards at an apartment in
Istanbul's Başakşehir district. In his temporary residence, al-Hashemi told
Turkish daily Milliyet that his country needed him and that he would not allow
his opponents to push him aside."

Nouri stomped his feet over the 2010 election results
and demanded a recount and then wasn't happy with the recount. Ben Van Heuvelen (Washington Post) reminds today, "As the head of the
Independent High Electoral Commission (IHEC), Haidari clashed with Maliki after
the contested elections of March 2010, in which the prime minister's coalition
placed a close second to the rival Iraqiya bloc, led by former prime minister
Ayad Allawi. In one of the most significant disputes, Haidari rejected Maliki's
petition to throw out thousands of votes for Iraqiya." Thursday he had the
Independent High Electoral Commission's chair Farah al-Haidari and commission
member Karim al-Tamimi arrested (they were released Sunday). Aswat al-Iraq reports:

A
political analyst described the arrest of head of Election Commission Faraj
al-Haidari as "a price for objecting the desires of Premier Nouri al-Maliki to
control it".Sarmad al-Ta'I told Aswat al-Iraq that "the arrest is a
matter of vendetta and accounts settlements".He added that "the case is grave
with greater sensitivity due to the nearness of provincial elections that Maliki
hopes to get a majority".Ta'I added that Haidari was one of
three who objected Maliki's policies.The other two were the Governor of
the Central Bank of Iraq Sinan al-Shibibi and ex-Chairman of Integrity
Commission Raheem Ikaili.

Ayad al-Tamimi (Al Mada) reports plans
to vote for the Electoral Commission to continue their work. But there appears
to be some confusion over whether or not Faraj al-Haidari and Karim al-Tamimi
could continue serving according to MP Mahmoud Hassan. Parliament needs to look
at the files agains them to determine that issue and Hassan is calling for the
formation of a parliamentary committee to examine the files and reach a
conclusion so that the matter can be resolved quickly. If that seems helpful,
remember it's a State of Law MP that brought the charges against the two men and
remember that Hassan is State of Law.

Alsumaria reports the Kurdish
Alliance is calling out Nouri's attempts to split them and rebuking his claim
that they are dissatisfied with KRG President Massoud Barzani. (See yesterday's
"Continued violence and chaos and
Nouri gets catty.") As Mohammad Akef Jamal (Gulf News) observed
yesterday of the ongoing political crisis, "The disagreements between the Al
Iraqiya List and the State of Law Coalition has taken a back seat lately. The
escalating differences between the central government and Arbil signal a
breakdown of the biggest strategic alliance that was built outside Iraq prior to
2003, and one that worked on toppling Saddam Hussain's regime and has led the
political process in the country ever since. The tension surrounding the Iraqi
political process indicates it could be pushed towards the point of no
return." KRG President Massoud Barzani visited DC two weeks ago and met with
US President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden. He made it very clear
that the KRG needs friends and that the KRG isn't interested in one-way
streets. He noted the history between the KRG and the US and how that history
had built a relationship of trust which had been put into jeopardy with requests
from the US repeatedly to back off this or compromise on this -- requests that
come with promises from the US about what Nouri will do in exchange but the
promises never emerge. He pointed to the US-brokered Erbil Agreement which
ended the eight month Political Stalemate I which followed the 2010 elections.
The US wanted Nouri to have a second term as prime minister. The Kurds ended up
backing that but they were supposed to get -- and this is written into the
agreement -- certain things in exchange. Nouri gladly grabbed a second term as
prime minister and then refused to honor the Erbil Agreement.

Not only that but the KRG considers Kirkuk to be their
province. The 2005 Constitution explains how the issue will be resolved: Census
and referendum And, per the Constitution, Article 140, this is supposed to be
taken care of by the end of 2007. Nouri's ignored it since 2006. And the Kurds
were asked to make nice. April 5th, in DC, KRG
President Massoud Barzani gave a speech and took questions. In reply to a
question, he declared:

We have been waiting for the
last six years for promises that were not delivered, for agreements that were
not honored. We have waited and everytime they give us an excuse. Once they say
that there are elections in Baghdad, another time, elections in the region.
Once there is election in the United States. Then there is the Arab Summit,
etc., etc. We have found out that we have passed six years waiting for these
promises to be delivered. We cannot anymore wait for unfulfilled promises and
undelivered promises. There has to be a specific and determined timeline for
this to be delivered. We got tired of this and we are fed up with that.
Therefore, what we will do is that we will work on the preferred option to
work with the other Iraqi groups to find a solution. If not, then we go back to
our people and to put all of these realities inf ront of our people for the
people to be free to make their own decision. As far as the issue of the oil is
concerned, in 2007, when we were working and we reached an agreement on a draft
oil hydrocarbons law, we both agreed that if that law did not pass in the
Parliament until May that same year that both sides -- the KRG and the federal
government -- are free to continuing signing contracts with international oil
companies. Therefore, whatever we have done in the region, we have not violated
the Constitution. We have acted legally and Constitutionally within the
framework of the Constitution.

As we noted then, "This speech was a declaration of
independence on the part of the Kurds. The basic premise Massoud Barzani has
outlined is: We will not be bound by empty words no matter who speaks them." In
what is probably today's most important report, Alister Bull (Reuters) explains:

President Barack Obama,
facing a damaging election-year problem if Iraq's political crisis worsens, has
launched an urgent behind-the-scenes push to ease tensions between the Baghdad
central government and the Kurds.

[. . .]

Reuters has learned that to
demonstrate U.S. support, the White House and Congress agreed to lift a
designation that treats Kurdistan's two main political parties as if they were
terrorist groups, complicating members' travel to the United States. In
addition, the U.S. consulate in Arbil will begin issuing U.S. visas before the
end of 2012.

Meanwhile
Al Rafidayn reports that the Ministry of the
Interior (which still has no legal minister to run it so Nouri runs it -- and
wants to, that's why he's refused to nominate a head for it all this time) is
stating the cause of continued violence ("terrorism") in Iraq is due to the
duplication of security -- there are too many security forces!

Yes, that is illogical. But carry it
out, as Nouri no doubt will, and you've got Nouri eliminating or restricting all
forces he doesn't control throughout Iraq. Throughout -- even in the three
provinces that make up the KRG.